expr?(void):(void)

[Mike Farren]

I don't know - maybe I'm just slow.  My understanding was that the reason for
the existence of "void" was to indicate to the compiler that a function did
not return a value, therefore no provisions need be taken to supply one, 
potentially freeing up a register.  Is this wrong?  At any rate, you can
replace the "expr?(void):(void)" construction with something on the order of
"if(expr)(void); else (void);" with only a slight increase in keystrokes,
and make your compiler a lot happier.


-- 
----------------
Mike Farren
hoptoad!farren   "Tickle my funnybone!"